Definitions: “Self Serving Declaration”, “Evidence”.

Self Serving Declaration:

“A self-serving declaration refers to a statement made by a party in his/ her own interest at some place and time out of court. It does not include testimony which the party gives as a witness at the trial.

Self-serving declarations are hearsay. “The purpose of the rule rendering hearsay evidence inadmissible is to prevent manufacturing evidence; hence self-serving declarations are excluded by courts”. [Hill v. Talbert, 210 Ark. 866 (Ark. 1946)]” Source: US


“Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding, as well as the quality and quantity of evidence that are necessary to fulfill the legal burden of proof. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.”

Example of a self serving statement:
“Shinichi Suzuki, a professor from Fukushima Medical University, stated at a panel meeting for the ongoing health impact following the nuclear disaster that it was still too early to directly link the cancer cases with Fukushima meltdowns. While this is somewhat hard to believe, what with the 2011 nuclear crisis being the worst disaster since Chernobyl in 1986, and three people from the prefecture just “coincidentally” developing cancer in following months, it was Chernobyl itself that showed it takes at least four to five years for the disease to be detected.” Source: Japan Daily Press,


Investigate statement, go to source cited: Chernobyl. Awaiting reply from 2004 report author re latency period of childhood thyroid cancer post Chernobyl. (Davis, University of Washington.) (my email sent on 6 June 2013). =The paper is entitled “Risk of Thyroid Cancer in the Bryansk Oblast of the Russian Federation after the Chernobyl Power Station Accident,” and is cataloged here:

Find statements based on scientific method which either confirm or refute the latency period of radiation induced childhood thyroid cancer as being rigidly 5 years as stated by Prof Suzuki of Fukushima.


Journal List
Ann Surg
v.239(4); Apr 2004

Latency Period of Thyroid Neoplasia After Radiation Exposure
Shoichi Kikuchi, MD, PhD, Nancy D. Perrier, MD, Philip Ituarte, PhD, MPH, Allan E. Siperstein, MD, Quan-Yang Duh, MD, and Orlo H. Clark, MD

From the From Department of Surgery, UCSF Affiliated Hospitals, San Francisco, California.

“Latency Period of Benign and Malignant Thyroid Tumors

Although some sporadic tumors unrelated to radiation may be included among our patients, the shortest latency period for both benign and malignant tumors was 1 year as occurred in 3 patients, whereas the longest time was 69 and 58 years, respectively (Fig. 1).”

end quote

Research indicates that the self serving statement of Prof Suzuki is contradicted by scientific evidence.

Suzuki gives an opinion and cites no evidence in his self serving statement.
In my opinion.

It can be shown that thyroid cancer resultant from radiation exposure may appear 12 months after exposure.

The question as to why Prof Suzuki should disregard medical evidence within his own sphere of activity and claimed expertise remains a mystery.

One may ask, in the same self serving manner as Prof Suzuki, what’s in it for him?

%d bloggers like this: